FINAL REPORT

GUIDELINES FOR THE USE, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION

OF BRIDGE APPROACH SLABS

Edward J. Hoppe, Ph.D., P.E.

Senior Research Scientist

(The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this

report are those of the author and not necessarily those of
the sponsoring agency.)

Virginia Transportation Research Council

(A Cooperative Organization Sponsored Jointly by the
Virginia Department of Transportation and
the University of Virginia)

Charlottesville, Virginia

November 1999
VTRC 00-R4
Copyright 1999 by the Virginia Transportation Research Council.

ii
 ABSTRACT

Differential settlement at the roadway/bridge interface typically results in an abrupt grade

change, causing driver discomfort, impairing driver safety, and exerting a potentially excessive
impact traffic loading on the abutment. Bridge approach slabs are used to keep the effects of this
differential settlement within tolerable limits. In many cases, however, the final magnitude of
settlement exceeds the working range of an approach slab, necessitating costly roadway and slab
repairs.

Many state departments of transportation regard the settlement of bridge approach slabs
as a substantial maintenance problem. Guidelines affecting the use, design methodology,
material specifications, and construction techniques vary greatly from state to state. The purpose
of this study was to provide a literature review on the subject and to conduct a survey on the state
of the practice.

Thirty-nine state departments of transportation responded to the survey. Summary

findings were compiled and compared with practices used by the Virginia Department of
Transportation. Recommendations for a new set of guidelines, aimed at mitigating bridge
approach settlement, were formulated.

iii
 FINAL REPORT

GUIDELINES FOR THE USE, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION

OF BRIDGE APPROACH SLABS

Edward J. Hoppe, Ph.D., P.E.

Senior Research Scientist

INTRODUCTION

Approach maintenance problems, manifested by a characteristic bump felt when driving

onto or away from a bridge, cause an estimated $100 million in annual repair expenditures for
state departments of transportation (DOTs) (Briaud et al., 1997). Although this problem is
commonly recognized and its causes are clearly identified, no unified set of engineering
solutions has emerged, primarily because of the number and complexity of the factors involved.
Very seldom can settlement at bridge approaches be traced to a single cause. Typically,
settlement reflects an aggregate effect of subsoil conditions, materials, construction techniques,
drainage provisions, and quality control methods.

Settlement of roadway fills typically consists of a compression of the embankment

material and a consolidation of the underlying natural foundation soils. The overall magnitude
of these two components can be substantial. An abrupt change in grade often develops at bridge
approaches because bridge foundations, normally piles or drilled shafts, must be designed for a
negligible amount of settlement. The bump at the end of the bridge often creates driver
discomfort. In addition, traffic impact loads acting on a structure increase the chances of damage
to the abutment and the deck. The resulting repairs can be costly in terms of expended
maintenance funds and impeded traffic flow to solve a recurring problem.

In an effort to reduce the effects of differential settlement, approach slabs are often
constructed at the ends of bridges. They normally consist of concrete structural slabs supported
at one end on the bridge abutment and at the other end on the embankment soil. In general,
approach slabs deliver a smooth grade transition between the bridge and the roadway. In a large
number of cases, however, their use results merely in moving the bump from the end of the
bridge to the end of the approach slab. Consequently, various issues surrounding the need for
and the construction of approach slabs have become the subject of controversial debates in the
highway community.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The primary purpose of this study was to examine practices of various state DOTs
regarding the use, design, and construction of approach slabs and compare them with those used
by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). In addition, the researcher aimed to
conduct a literature review of the issues involved and recommend measures to minimize
differential settlement at bridge approaches.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted regarding issues involved in using, designing, and
constructing approach slabs. Relevant articles and publications were selected using the
Transport bibliographic database.

A survey of state DOTs that focused on issues concerning bridge approach slabs was
developed and administered by the Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC) in
consultation with VDOT’s Structure & Bridge Division. The goal of the survey was to obtain
feedback from state DOTs on the state of the practice concerning the use, design, and
construction of bridge approach slabs. State DOT geotechnical, structural, and foundation
engineers were surveyed in the 48 contiguous states. Appendix A shows the survey
questionnaire, and Appendix B shows the individuals surveyed.

RESULTS

Literature Review

Although excessive settlement at a bridge approach is easy to spot, its causes are often
complex. Figure 1 illustrates a typical approach slab configuration employed in bridge
construction. The slab is usually supported on a backwall at one end and on the adjoining
highway embankment at the other. Sometimes, a sleeper support slab is used, particularly in the
case of portland cement concrete pavements, to equalize settlements beneath the roadway end.
The bump that is often felt while driving over an approach slab reveals a differential settlement
of an embankment relative to the superstructure. In most situations, the greatest concerns
include deteriorating ride quality and impaired driver control of a vehicle. In extreme cases, the
resulting impact traffic loading may adversely affect the service life of a structure.

With reference to Figure 1, it is evident that a finite amount of differential settlement is

inevitable at virtually all bridge approaches. The bridge is typically constructed with deep
foundations designed for a negligible abutment settlement. On the other hand, the adjoining
approach embankment is built incrementally with numerous layers of fill material, which can
settle appreciably if not properly placed and compacted. In addition, the underlying subsurface
soils can undergo significant settlement because of consolidation caused by the weight exerted
by the approach embankment. The consolidation component is often predominant in areas
underlain by soft clays and silts. Other common contributions to fill settlement stem from
embankment erosion and thermal bridge movements.

2
 Figure 1. Bridge Approach Settlement

The presence of an approach slab has no effect on the magnitude of the differential
settlement that will ultimately develop. The primary function of the approach slab is to provide a
gradual transition, or a ramp, between the fixed superstructure and the settling embankment.
Without an approach slab, the “bump” at the end of the bridge becomes much more abrupt.
Thus, within practical limits, the length of an approach slab may be used as a variable to adjust
the change in longitudinal gradient to an acceptable level. The question becomes “what is
tolerable to the travelling public and what measures should be instituted to achieve and maintain
that level of rider comfort in a cost-effective fashion?” In a recent study, Briaud et al. (1997)
recommended a maximum allowable change in slope of 1/200, based on studies by Wahls (1990)
and Stark et al. (1995). Long et al. (1988) also proposed a relative gradient of less than 1/200 to
ensure rider comfort and a gradient of between 1/100 and 1/125 as a criterion for initiating
remedial measures.

Several comprehensive studies of the performance of approach slabs have been

sponsored over the years by various state DOTs. A study conducted at the California DOT
(Caltrans) by Stewart (1985) identified the original ground subsidence and fill settlement as
primary causes of approach maintenance problems. The resulting recommendations included
using select fill material for a distance of 45 m (150 ft) from the bridge, waterproofing the
approach embankment, and using approach slabs 9 m (30 ft) long. The proposed approach slab
should be doweled into the backwall to ensure a watertight joint. In addition, the slab should be
cantilevered over the wingwalls to minimize surface water infiltration.

A study conducted by the Washington State DOT (Kramer & Sajer, 1991) summarized
findings from various state DOTs and recommended guidelines for the use and construction of
approach slabs. While promoting the use of approach slabs in general, the researchers

3
recommended that a design geotechnical engineer be responsible for assessing the need on a site-
specific basis. The study also called for the use of select granular fill and stringent inspections of
the placement and compaction of abutment backfill. The main causes of bridge approach
distress were traced to consolidation of foundation soils, compression of embankment fill, and a
localized soil settlement near the approach-abutment interface attributable to inadequate
compaction.

Research conducted by Mahmood (1990) indicated that the type of abutment affects the
magnitude of approach settlement. Spill-through or shelf abutments were associated with
rougher approaches, as compared to the cantilever type. A lack of lateral confinement in the case
of a spill-through abutment was found to contribute to increased soil erosion, resulting in
accelerated approach embankment settlement. Traffic volume had no influence. The study
recommended the use of various ground improvement techniques, including wick drains and
surcharging, to mitigate the foundation soil settlement. The use of lightweight fill materials was
also proposed as a means of reducing the vertical loading exerted on the foundation soil.

Chini et al. (1992) summarized critical items in the design and construction of bridge
approaches. They recommended particular materials and construction techniques for approach
embankments. These recommendations included removal and replacement of compressible
foundation soils, dynamic compaction, surcharging, use of select borrow fill material, and
minimum compaction requirements of 95% of the Standard Proctor (AASHTO T 99), coupled
with increased construction inspection.

A recently completed NCHRP synthesis report on the settlement of approach slabs

(Briaud et al., 1997) recommended more stringent requirements for fill material specifications
and inspection practices. The study concluded that a close cooperation among geotechnical,
structural, pavement, construction, and maintenance engineers correlates with lower reported
incidences of excessive approach settlement.

Survey Results

Thirty-nine state DOTs responded to the survey (including partial responses),

representing an 81% return rate. The results are grouped in the order of use, design, and
construction practices. A complete set of raw survey responses is available from the author.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Approach Slabs

Eighty-one percent of respondents quoted a smooth ride as a primary advantage for the
use of approach slabs (see Appendix C, Table C-1). (Note: All tables cited in this report may be
found in Appendix C.) A reduced impact on the backwall was commonly given as a secondary
advantage (41%), followed by enhanced drainage control (16%). Two states, Kentucky and
Maryland, derive no clearly defined advantages from the use of approach slabs. Among primary
disadvantages (see Table C-2), the initial high construction cost was quoted by 75% of

4
respondents and maintenance problems with settling approach slabs were listed by 52%. Other
disadvantages included difficulties with staged construction and increased construction time.

Extent of Usage

Table C-3 illustrates the percentage of bridges that include approach slabs in various
states on interstate, primary, and secondary systems. Fifty percent of respondents use approach
slabs on all interstate bridges. The majority of the remaining states indicated an interstate usage
in excess of 80%. Geographically, the responses appear to be evenly distributed. The use of
approach slabs on the primary highway system is also prevalent. Forty-two percent of
respondents use them on all bridges, and virtually all others use them on over 50% of bridges.
Usage on the secondary system varies significantly from state to state. Twenty-four percent of
respondents, evenly distributed across the nation, indicated 100% utilization, and 21% use
approach slabs on the majority of secondary bridges. Virginia’s responses indicated usage on
interstate and primary systems consistent with the national trend and relatively low usage on
secondary roads.

Usage Criteria

The usage criteria employed by a DOT to determine whether to consider using an

approach slab at the bridge project consist primarily of traffic volume (average daily traffic
[ADT], average annual daily traffic [AADT], or design hourly volume [DHV]) and/or road
functional classification. Survey respondents did not provide exact traffic volume thresholds for
the use of approach slabs. In the case of conventional bridge abutments, 38% of respondents
indicated specifying approach slabs at all times, regardless of the situation. One state listed an
engineer’s option as a main criterion, presumably based on a comprehensive geotechnical
analysis. Other factors included pavement type and embankment height. In the case of integral
bridge abutments, 60% of the respondents constructing this type of structure indicated that they
use approach slabs at all times. The use of approach slabs in Virginia is governed by the volume
of traffic and the functional classification of the road. Tables C-4 and C-5 show the typical
usage criteria for conventional and integral bridges, respectively.

Special Inclusion/Exclusion Circumstances

With regard to special circumstances that would prompt them to include an approach slab
in situations where one is normally excluded, 30% of responding DOTs do not typically consider
any special cases. Twenty-four percent cited concerns about excessive settlement as the main
factor in their decision.

Twenty-one percent of respondents indicated that a low estimated settlement would

prompt them to exclude an approach slab, but 48% have no exclusion policy in place. Virginia
provides for exclusions based on technical justification, as approved by the office of the state
structure and bridge engineer. Tables C-6 and C-7 show individual responses.

5
Typical Dimensions of Approach Slabs

Fifty percent of respondents quoted a commonly used slab length as 6.1 m (20 ft). The
shortest reported length was 3 m (10 ft), and the longest 12.2 m (40 ft). The reported thickness
varied from 0.20 m (8 in) for a slab 4.6 m (15 ft) long to 0.43 m (17 in) for a slab 9.1 m (30 ft)
long. Approach slabs with a typical length of 6.1 m (20 ft) were reported to have a thickness
between 0.23 m (9 in) and 0.38 m (15 in), with an average of 0.30 m (12 in). Most respondents
construct full-width (curb-to-curb) approach slabs. Virginia uses slabs 6.1 m (20 ft) long and
0.38 m (15 in) thick. Table C-8 shows all responses.

Slab Connections with Bridge Abutments

Fifty-seven percent of respondents indicated the use of doweled or tied connections, and
43% use no mechanical attachments for conventional bridges. Doweled connections are
commonly used at integral bridges. Seventy-one percent of respondents with integral structures
reported using mechanical connections at the approach slab/backwall interface. In Virginia, all
approach slabs at conventional bridges are supported by a ledge poured monolithic with the
backwall, whereas slabs at integral bridges are doweled. Table C-9 shows all responses.

Fill Specifications

A number of responding DOTs specify select fill material for bridge approach
embankments. Forty-nine percent indicated the use of more stringent material specifications for
the approach fill as contrasted with a regular highway embankment fill. A typical requirement is
limiting the percentage of fine particles to reduce material plasticity and enhance drainage
properties. The allowable percentage of material passing the 75-micron (No. 200) sieve varied
from less than 4% to less than 20%. Virginia allows the use of a regular embankment fill at
bridge approaches. Table C-10 summarizes the responses.

Construction Specifications

In the majority of states, including Virginia, the approach fill is constructed in 0.20-m (8-
in) loose lifts of granular fill, compacted to 95% of the Standard Proctor value. Four states
enforce strict 100% Standard Proctor compaction requirements. In many states, the range of
allowable material moisture contents is not specified. Table C-11 summarizes the responses.

Drainage Provisions

Effective surface and subsurface drainage systems are essential in controlling soil erosion
in highway embankments. Most states define specific requirements for drainage of bridge
approach embankments. Typical provisions include plastic drainpipes; weep holes in the
abutments; and the use of granular, free-draining fill. The use of geosynthetic materials, fabrics
and geocomposite drainage panels, was reported by 24% of the respondents. Virginia design

6
details call for the use of crusher-run aggregate and weep holes or pipe underdrains behind
backwalls. VDOT also has a special provision allowing the use of geocomposite drains. The
responses are shown in Table C-12.

Inspection

When asked if contractors are closely monitored during embankment construction, 73%
of respondents felt confident that their quality control procedures relating to earthworks were
satisfactory. The responses, which were for the most part uniformly distributed throughout the
nation, are provided in Table C-13.

Construction Problems

Approximately 50% of respondents have had difficulty obtaining a specified degree of

fill compaction in the proximity of bridge abutments. This is often cited as one of the main
causes of approach slab settlement. Because of spatial limitations near the abutments, often
imposed by the contractor’s preferences, only small compaction equipment is normally used.
Significantly, 32% of states that reported problems also claimed that they were satisfied with
their quality assurance/quality control inspection procedures. The responses are provided in
Table C-13.

Use of Recycled or Manufactured Materials

Approximately 27% of responding DOTs have experimented with the use of non-soil
materials behind bridge abutments. Alternative construction materials typically include
lightweight fills, such as shredded tires, to minimize the foundation soil settlement and
geosynthetic reinforcement designed to increase the overall embankment stability and reduce
erosion. In special design situations, VDOT has used Solite and Elastizell behind bridge
abutments with good results. The responses are provided in Table C-13.

Order of Construction

Fifty-five percent of respondents stated that they typically build approach embankments
before bridge abutments, and 18% responded that they were constructed either way. Usually,
cantilever-type abutments are built prior to fill placement. The main advantage of placing
approach embankments in advance of bridge abutments is that it allows a significant portion of
the anticipated settlement to occur during construction, before the bridge is open to traffic. The
responses are provided in Table C-14.

7
Is Approach Slab Settlement a Problem?

A clear majority, 55%, of respondents was convinced that approach slab settlement is a
significant maintenance problem. Twenty-nine percent of respondents consider it a moderate
problem. Sixteen percent do not view it as a problem. The responses are provided in Table C-
15.

DISCUSSION

Frequency of Use

It is evident from the literature that excessive bridge approach settlements and associated
maintenance issues have been studied and identified for some time. Over the years, a number of
recommendations have been formulated and implemented with varying degrees of success. The
survey results indicated that a majority of state DOTs still consider approach settlement to be a
serious maintenance problem.

The frequency with which approach slabs are used varies drastically throughout the
nation. At one extreme, 14 DOTs use them at all times (for conventional abutments), and at the
other end of the spectrum, two DOTs (Kentucky and Maryland) practice a no-use policy,
claiming that approach slabs serve only to move the bump from the end of the bridge to the end
of the approach slab. Clearly, there is no national consensus as to the real benefits or drawbacks
regarding the use of approach slabs. It is evident from the survey that there is no direct
correlation between the extent of use of approach slabs and the resulting maintenance efforts.
Other countries also have varying usage policies. For example, approach slabs are seldom used
in Germany (Tophinke, 1997). Instead, stringent embankment material requirements and
compaction control methods (100% Proctor) are specified, frequently in combination with
ground improvement techniques. German guidelines do not promote reliance on approach slabs
to mitigate differential settlement problems.

Influence of Traffic

VDOT policy stipulates that structural approach slabs are to be used in the initial
construction of all interstate and arterial systems and all structures (except the secondary system)
with a DHV over 200 and an ADT over 1250. In addition, approach slabs are mandated on
secondary road bridges with a DHV over 400. Traffic counts apply to a design year. Thus,
VDOT policy is based on a traffic volume and a road functional classification. The policy is
essentially in line with the current national state of the practice, as the majority of state DOTs
rely on these two variables in the decision-making process. VDOT also allows for exclusion of
approach slabs when justified on technical merits by district structure and bridge engineers and
approved by the Office of the State Structure and Bridge Engineer.

8
 It appears that the ADT and DHV thresholds specified by VDOT for including approach
slabs reflect relatively low traffic volumes. To put it in perspective, a recent study by Schrank
and Lomax (1997) concluded that 15,000 vehicles per day per lane (vpdpl) for freeways is an
estimate of the beginning of level of service D (LOS D) operation, signifying the onset of a
significant traffic congestion. LOS runs from A to F, with A being “perfect” and F being
“intolerable.” Historically, typical VDOT designs are for LOS C during rush hour.

An assessment of traffic flow in freeway work zones, as provided in the Highway

Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 1994), indicates that typical open-lane
capacities are in the range of 1,170 (one lane of three open) to 1,520 (three lanes of four open)
vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl). Dixon et al. (1996) observed that the average speed in these
work zones during the day can be maintained at 85 km/h (53 mph) for volumes below 1,100
vphpl.

If one accepts the premise that approach slabs are required on high-volume roads because
of a greater likelihood of public complaints pertaining to bumps and limited maintenance
accessibility when repairs are needed, then a closer look at ADT and DHV threshold values for
mandatory use of approach slabs is warranted. The VDOT thresholds of 1,250 ADT and 200
DHV do not depend on the number of available traffic lanes. These thresholds are applied
equally to eight-lane and two-lane roads, although the latter would typically be much more
constraining from the standpoint of maintenance access.

Based on the existing studies, one can presume that the per-lane capacity in the work
zone is at least 1,000 vehicles per hour. If one assumes that approach maintenance operations
result in one-half of the initial number of lanes being available for traffic, then 500 vphpl would
be a limiting factor. If one, somewhat arbitrarily, decides to accept only 50% of this value as a
threshold that can be reasonably tolerated, then 250 vphpl could be used as a benchmark. This
figure translates into 1,700 vpdpl (peak hourly traffic = 15% of daily traffic) according to the
Highway Capacity Manual guidelines. It can be argued that the approach slab use considerations
based on the per lane traffic flow (vpdpl and vphpl) would be more comprehensive than ADT
and DHV thresholds because they reflect the number of available traffic lanes.

Influence of Subsurface Conditions and Compaction

It must be recognized that the factors contributing to the underlying settlement need to be
addressed and resolved whether or not approach slabs are used. The use of approach slabs may
result in reduced maintenance expenditures in situations involving a relatively small amount of
differential settlement. In cases of substantial settlement, however, particularly at long-span
integral bridges, the cost of repairing a failing approach slab may be significantly greater than the
cost of placing recurrent overlays.

Consolidation of the original foundation soil beneath the approach embankment often
constitutes the largest single component of the total settlement. Various techniques are available
to minimize this problem, including removal and replacement, dynamic compaction, stone
columns, deep soil mixing, wick drains, and surcharging. Another potentially available solution

9
involves constructing embankments using a lightweight fill material such as expanded
polystyrene to minimize the vertical stress exerted on the foundation soil and the resulting
settlement (Frydenlund et al., 1997).

The implementation of a suitable ground improvement method, when considered

necessary, needs to be done in the early design stages of a project. Federal Highway
Administration guidelines for presenting data in the foundation investigation report explicitly
call for settlement analysis of subsoils, including an estimate of the magnitude of the settlement,
the time that will elapse before settlement, the required height of the surcharge, and
recommendations on special ground improvement methods (Cheney & Chassie, 1993).

In Virginia, highly compressible soils are concentrated primarily in the eastern part of the
state. Figure 2 shows the location of Virginia’s five main physiographic provinces. With regard
to subsoil settlement considerations, the most troublesome materials are distributed mainly in the
Coastal Plain. They include deep, unconsolidated marine clay deposits of very high
compressibility. Site conditions generally improve in the Piedmont, with the underlying igneous
and metamorphic rocks. The surficial soil cover further decreases and competent rock becomes
more abundant in the Blue Ridge, typically resulting in significantly less challenging settlement
problems. Geotechnical conditions worsen again in the western part of the state. Extensive
sedimentary rocks, including limestone and dolomite, underlie the Valley and Ridge and
Appalachian Plateaus. The high solubility of the materials when in contact with the groundwater
frequently results in karst conditions, causing numerous ground subsidence problems.

Figure 2. Physiographic Provinces of Virginia

The approach embankment settlement can be minimized by using select fill materials,
installing effective drainage systems, and having strict compaction requirements. A rough
estimate of the post-construction settlement can be made by assuming that the maximum and
minimum void ratios for the granular fill are 0.8 and 0.5, respectively (Monahan, 1994). At a
relative density of 95%, the corresponding fill settlement is approximately 1% of the
embankment height. At a relative density of 98%, the fill settlement can be reduced to
approximately one half of that amount. This indicates that in the case of a well-compacted
granular fill, the settlement becomes a design issue at heights exceeding approximately 3 m (10
ft). Increasing fill compaction requirements from 95% to 98% of the Standard Proctor is likely

10
to reduce the embankment settlement problems, but it would have no effect on the consolidation
of the underlying foundation soil. In fact, survey results indicate that some agencies that specify
100% compaction still experience significant bridge approach settlements.

VDOT specifications do not call for the use of a select fill material at bridge approaches.
This is in striking contrast with many other state DOTs. VDOT allows liberal use of
conventional embankment fill, often containing a large amount of fines, at bridge abutments. In
addition, the specifications allow material to be placed at a moisture content ranging within 20%
of the optimum value, which sometimes results in a placement significantly wetter than
optimum. Efforts are currently underway to tighten aspects of VDOT’s specifications pertaining
to earthworks at bridge approaches to reduce the potential for differential settlement. Changes
being considered include specifying select fill material containing a low percentage of fines,
increasing compaction test frequency, and reducing the range of allowable moisture contents
during placement. The extent of select material being considered is a prism extending from the
heel of the footing to a point 3 m (10 ft) away laterally and then rising at a slope of 1:1 toward
the surface.

Survey results indicate that several highway agencies in the United States have adopted
stricter compaction standards, with some calling for 100% relative compaction. At the same
time, however, it is commonly recognized that fill compaction in the proximity of the backwall
requires special attention to avoid excessive lateral pressures. This concern, coupled with a
relatively confined compaction zone behind the abutment, necessitates the use of light, portable
compactors. Frequently, a localized section of poorly compacted material is formed,
contributing to the subsequent approach settlement. One possible solution is the use of flowable
fill, also referred to as controlled low-strength material. The ongoing NCHRP Project 24-12
(Controlled Low-Strength Material for Backfill, Utility Bedding, Void Fill, and Bridge
Approaches) is structured to provide more practical guidance in this area.

Settlement and Design Issues

Currently, VDOT has no established roughness criteria for initiating maintenance

operations on bridges and bridge approaches. In the absence of adopted standards, a change in
the approach gradient of 1/125 may be regarded as a criterion for initiating remedial measures
and a gradient of 1/200 may be considered as satisfactory for rider comfort (Long et al., 1997).

Applying these limits, the required design length of an approach slab (L) can be estimated
as (Briaud et al., 1997):

L >= 200 (sf - sa)

where sf is the estimated total fill settlement at the end of the approach slab, and sa is the
estimated settlement of the bridge abutment.

If the bridge abutment is constructed on deep foundations, then the value of sa can be
assumed to be zero. Based on survey responses, the design slab length varies between 3 m

11
(approximately 10 ft) and 12 m (approximately 40 ft), corresponding to acceptable differential
settlements ranging between 15 mm (0.6 in) and 60 mm (2.4 in).

Additional anticipated movement can be accommodated by a technique of roadway pre-

cambering (Tadros & Benak, 1989), thus accounting for the frequently inevitable post-
construction settlement. If one assumes that the approach pavement can be pre-cambered
upward to a 1/125 change in gradient corresponding to the maintenance limit, the range of rider-
acceptable differential settlements would be effectively extended to 155 mm (6.1 in).

On low-volume roads, resurfacing a settling bridge approach pavement (in one or several
operations over time) may be more cost-effective than constructing an approach slab. An
additional maintenance effort is likely to be required only in the first 2 or 3 years following
construction. Resurfacing may be considered a practical solution on low-volume roads with a
total anticipated differential settlement not exceeding 100 to 150 mm (4 to 6 in) if it can be
proven to reduce the total lifetime cost of the project.

Other potentially valid considerations for deleting an approach slab include the presence
of an existing, already consolidated fill (on bridge replacement projects) and low embankments
overlying bedrock, where any subsequent settlement is likely to be negligible. At the other
extreme, in situations involving a very large predicted post-construction settlement, approach
slabs may be eliminated since no real benefit will be gained from their use. This is a
recommended policy at the Washington State DOT (Jenkins, 1996) when preventive measures
aimed at minimizing differential settlement are impractical to implement and repaving becomes
the most cost-effective option. However, when approach slabs are not used, the abutments must
be designed to accommodate additional traffic loading, as outlined in the AASHTO Road and
Bridge Specifications.

Frequent resurfacing of bridge approaches would not be regarded as a practical solution

on high-volume roads where extensive traffic control measures, safety considerations, and
potential traffic congestion do not favor maintenance activities. The use of approach slabs in
these situations would be preferred since they would “buy” more time before the repairs are
necessary or even eliminate remedial actions if settlements of a small magnitude occur. The use
of approach slabs in these situations is likely to eliminate several iterations of pavement buildup.

When an approach slab settles excessively, the available repair options typically consist
of either mudjacking or overlaying with additional pavement. On portland cement concrete
pavements and at integral bridges, possible repairs include placing a thin-bonded overlay and
jacking up or replacing settling approach slabs. A significantly less expensive option of
resurfacing is available in the case of asphalt pavements. VDOT has been constructing approach
slabs buried 50 to 100 mm (2 to 4 in) below the final grade to permit planing and overlay with
asphalt pavement without creating feathering problems at the bridge end. This design was
further refined by the Massachusetts Highway Department, as shown in Figure 3. The slab is
placed at approximately 610 mm (24 in) below the deck elevation, supporting bituminous
pavement and the underlying base material. A positive drainage of subsurface water away from
the backwall is achieved through a longitudinal slope. It appears that this design may be more
effective in situations involving large differential settlements at bridge approaches. Figure 4

12
 Figure 3. Massachusetts Highway Department Approach Slab Detail (Drawing No. 4.4.12, dated 4/1994)

Figure 4. Approach Slab Distress Attributable to Foundation Soil Settlement (Rte. 10 westbound lane over
the Appomattox River)

shows an extreme example of a failure of the VDOT design, with a layer of asphalt pavement
breaking around the periphery of the approach slab. The approach distress was caused by the
excessive consolidation of the underlying soft soils. When breaks in the pavement developed at

13
the edge of the approach slab, surface water infiltration and erosion compounded this
maintenance problem.

The “buried” approach slab is obviously not suitable at integral bridges unless special
measures are taken to allow for unrestrained lateral movement of the superstructure. VDOT, like
most other DOTs, specifies a doweled slab connection at the integral backwall. Excessive
settlement of approach slabs at integral bridges is particularly serious because of the possibility
of backwall damage. The potential for settlement is particularly acute because of repetitive
lateral, thermally induced movement of the superstructure and the resulting compression of the
adjacent fill (Hoppe & Gomez, 1997). The exclusion of approach slabs at integral bridges can
result in overly frequent pavement maintenance operations. This issue is being addressed by the
Virginia Transportation Research Council through a field study aimed at selecting compatible
backfill materials.

VDOT approach slabs are typically 6.1 m (20 ft) long and of pavement width unless the
shoulder has a full-depth pavement, in which case the slab width is extended across the shoulder.
The majority of state DOTs responding to the survey indicated that they used full-width slabs,
mainly because of the improved channeling of surface runoff that reduces embankment soil
erosion contributing to differential settlement.

VDOT’s Staunton District has adopted a novel design detail to combat erosion at the
backwall/pavement interface (see Figure 5). The objective is to break the flow path of surface
water particles by cantilevering the bridge deck beyond the backwall and providing a drip bead
at the underside of the extending portion. The overhang is typically 305 mm (12 in) deep and
cantilevers approximately 100 mm (4 in) beyond the backwall. It is based on a modified VDOT
standard from the 1950s.

Figure 5. Erosion Control Design Detail for Bridges Without Approach Slabs (VDOT’s Staunton District)

14
 CONCLUSIONS

• Virtually every state DOT employs a unique set of criteria governing the use, design, and
construction of bridge approach slabs. There are no commonly accepted standards for
evaluating the effectiveness of approach slabs and no unified policy for selecting them. A
common trend is to use approach slabs on all high-volume roads, typically on the interstate
and primary systems. Beyond that, usage guidelines, design methodology, material
specifications, and construction techniques differ greatly from state to state.

• The traffic volume VDOT currently uses as a criterion for selecting approach slabs appears to
be too conservative.

• Full-width approach slabs are used by the majority of state DOTs. The primary advantage of
this design is reduced erosion of the approach fill, which results in less differential
settlement.

• Placing approach slabs below the road surface facilitates resurfacing operations. An
additional design consideration should involve providing drainage between the top of the
approach slab and the surface of the road.

• Some differential settlement at bridge approaches is unavoidable because of differing

foundations beneath the bridge and the roadway. Pre-cambering may be employed to
compensate for this phenomenon.

• The majority of state DOTs consider bridge approach settlement a serious and persistent
maintenance problem.

• Differential settlement and the resulting bump at the end of the bridge should be viewed as
problems that require engineering analysis on a site-specific basis to derive a cost-effective
solution. Approach fills should be considered structural elements, directly affecting
performance of the adjoining bridge. The use of bridge approach slabs without due regard
for ground improvement and embankment design and construction issues addresses only the
symptoms and not the cause of the underlying problem.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are directed to VDOT’s Bridge, Materials, and Location
& Design divisions:

1. Adopt new traffic volume thresholds, higher than the currently stipulated ADT and
DHV values, for considering the use of approach slabs. A new limit of 1,700
vehicles per day per lane (vpdpl) and 250 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl),
reflecting the available traffic capacity for maintenance access, would seem

15
 appropriate. VDOT should monitor and analyze the impact of adopting new
threshold values with follow-up studies.

2. Require the use of bridge approach slabs in the initial construction of all structures
on Virginia’s highways with design traffic volumes exceeding both thresholds. The
district bridge engineer should have the option of using approach slabs in the
remaining cases. All requests for design exceptions should be directed to the Office
of the State Structure and Bridge Engineer for review. For design exceptions
involving omitting an approach slab, the impact on the road maintenance schedule
should be communicated to the resident engineer.

3. When approach slabs are omitted, ensure that the abutment design computations
account for the additional live load attributable to traffic in accordance with
AASHTO specifications.

4. Construct bridge approach slabs to the full width (curb to curb) of roadway to
minimize settlement caused by surface water infiltration and subsequent embankment
erosion.

5. Ensure that the length of approach slabs are compatible with the expected settlement.
Longer approach slabs should be considered in cases involving very soft foundation
soils and/or high embankments to provide a more gradual transition in areas of
potentially high differential settlement.

6. Bury approach slabs constructed at asphalt roadways and at non-integral bridges

below the current 50 to 100 mm (2 to 4 in) design depth to facilitate resurfacing
operations and allow drainage between the pavement and the underlying approach
slab. A proposed design detail, with the underside of the approach slab placed at 700
mm (28 in) below the surface and sloping away from the backwall, is shown in Figure
6. This detail allows placement of the full pavement section on top of the approach
slab and provides for drainage of subsurface water away from the backwall.

7. In all geotechnical foundation reports for all bridge projects, include a

comprehensive settlement analysis of subsoils and provide recommendations on
ground improvement pertaining to approach embankment construction. Bridge
approach settlement should be treated as a separate design issue, accounting for
specific subsurface soil conditions, traffic volume, type of structure, and maintenance
accessibility. The resources currently allocated to carry out these tasks should be
reviewed and augmented if necessary to better serve the needs of VDOT and the
travelling public.

8. Where applicable, carry out ground improvement procedures in the early stages of a
project to minimize any residual long-term embankment settlement. One of the most
effective means of mitigating long-term settlement problems is surcharging, which
requires advance planning and coordination to ensure that most of the anticipated
settlement occurs during construction.

16
 Figure 6. Proposed Approach Slab Details for Non-Integral Bridges

9. Adopt fill material specifications designed to minimize embankment compression

settlement for bridge approach construction.

10. Where practical, implement pre-cambering of bridge approaches at up to a 1/125

longitudinal gradient for a minimum distance from the backwall equal to the length
of the approach slab to accommodate the differential settlement that will inevitably
occur between a structure constructed on deep foundations and adjoining
earthworks. It is proposed that this concept be implemented gradually over 2 or 3
years to allow for monitoring and performance assessment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was sponsored and supported by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The author is grateful for the technical support of Malcolm Kerley, Vince Roney, David
Williams, and Park Thompson of VDOT’s Bridge Division and Stanley Hite of VDOT’s
Materials Division. Helpful guidance in analyzing traffic volume data was provided by John
Miller and Ben Cottrell of the Virginia Transportation Research Council. The assistance of Jill
Rosenthal of the University of Virginia with survey preparation and analysis is greatly
appreciated.

17
 REFERENCES

Briaud, J.L., James, R.W., & Hoffman, S.B. (1997). Settlement of Bridge Approaches (The
Bump at the End of the Bridge). NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 234.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

Cheney, R.S., & Chassie, R.G. (1993). Soils and Foundations Workshop Manual. Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Chini, S.A., Wolde-Tinsae, A.M., & Aggour, M.S. (1992). Drainage and Backfill Provisions
for Approaches to Bridges. University of Maryland, College Park.

Dixon, K.K., Hummer, J.E, & Lorscheider, A.R. (1996). Capacity for North Carolina Freeway
Work Zones. Transportation Research Record No. 1529. Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.

Frydenlund, T.E., Cheney, R.S., Cobbe, M.I., Maagdenberg, A.C., Valkeisenmäki, A., Wilson,
P.E., & Yamamura, K. (1997). Lightweight Filling Materials. PIARC Technical
Committee on Earthworks, Drainage, Subgrade (C12), Paris.

Hoppe, E.J., & Gomez, J.P. (1997). Field Study of an Integral Backwall Bridge. Virginia
Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville.

Jenkins, D. (1996). Washington State DOT. Personal Communication. Seattle.

Kramer, S.L., & Sajer, P. (1991). Bridge Approach Slab Effectiveness. Washington State
Transportation Center, Seattle.

Long, J.H., Olson, S.M, & Stark, T.D. (1998). Differential Movement at Embankment/Bridge
Structure Interface in Illinois. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

Mahmood, I.U. (1990). Evaluation of Causes of Bridge Approach Settlement and Development
of Settlement Prediction Models. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Monahan, E.J. (1994). Construction of Fills. John Wiley & Sons, Bloomfield, New Jersey.

Schrank, D.L., & Lomax, T.J. (1997). Urban Roadway Congestion: 1982 to 1994, Volume 2:
Methodology and Urbanized Area Data. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station.

Stark, T.D., Olson, S.M., & Long, J.H. (1995). Differential Movement at the
Embankment/Structure Interface: Mitigation and Rehabilitation. (Report No. IAB-H1,
FY 93). Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield.

Stewart, C.F. (1985). Highway Structure Approaches. California Department of

Transportation, Sacramento.

18
Tadros, M.K., & Benak, J.V. (1989). Bridge Abutment and Approach Slab Settlement (Phase
1). University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Tophinke, G. (1987). Straßenneubauamt Mitte, Neumünster, Germany. Personal

Communication.

Transportation Research Board. (1994). Highway Capacity Manual. (Special Report 209).
Washington, DC.

Virginia Department of Transportation. (1994). Road and Bridge Specifications. Richmond.

Wahls, H.E. (1990). Design and Construction of Bridge Approaches. NCHRP Synthesis of
Highway Practice 159. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

19
20
 APPENDIX A

BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB SURVEY

The purpose of this survey is to evaluate current VDOT policy on the use of
bridge approach slabs. Responses from various state DOTs will be analyzed. We
will provide you with a copy of the final report. Your participation is greatly
appreciated.

AGENCY:

NAME: TITLE:

1. Approximately what percentage of your bridges include approach slabs?

Please list by Interstate, Primary, and Secondary system.

2. What are your criteria for the use of approach slabs (i.e. ADT, road functional
classification, fill height) on bridges with:

a) conventional abutments?

b) integral abutments?

3. What special circumstances would you consider in your decision to:

a) include an approach slab on a bridge not meeting the above criteria?

b) exclude an approach slab on a bridge meeting the above criteria?

4. What benefits and disadvantages do you derive from the use of approach
slabs?

5. What are the typical dimensions of your approach slabs? If possible, please
send us a copy of your standard.

6. How are your approach slabs connected with bridge abutments? Please
identify both conventional and integral abutments.

21
7. What are your material specifications for a fill adjoining a bridge abutment
and are they different from those pertaining to regular embankments?

8. What are your construction specifications on lift thickness, percent

compaction, and type of compaction equipment for a fill placed adjacent to
bridge abutments?

9. Are contractors closely monitored by your inspectors during backfilling and

compaction at abutments?

10. Do you often experience difficulties in obtaining a specified degree of fill

compaction at abutments?

11. Has your agency ever used or considered using recycled or manufactured
materials for backfilling at abutments? If so, please provide details.

12. What are the drainage provisions at your abutments?

13. Do you typically build approach embankments before or after abutment

construction?

14. Is approach slab settlement a significant maintenance problem for your agency
and, if so, what steps has your agency taken to mitigate it?

15. Remarks:

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this survey. Please fax your
responses to:

Virginia Transportation Research Council

Att.: Edward Hoppe
Fax: (804) 293-1990

22
 APPENDIX B

SURVEY CONTACTS

STATE CONTACT NAME PHONE FAX

AL Mitchell Kilpatrick 334-242-6272 334-832-9084
AR John Annable 501-569-2496 501-569-2368
AZ Shafi Hasan 602-255-8478 602-407-3056
CA Minh Ha 916-227-8682 916-227-8379
CO J. B. Gilmore 303-757-9275 303-757-9242
CT Leo Fontaine 203-594-3180 203-594-3175
DE Chao Hu 302-739-4355 302-739-2217
FL Joe Bhuvasorakul 904-488-6461 904-488-6352
GA Tom Scruggs 404-363-7546 404-363-7684
ID Tri Buu 208-334-8448 208-334-8595
IL Emile Samara 217-782-7773 217-782-7960
Robert Dawe
IN Steve Morris 317-232-5280 317-356-9351
IO George Sisson 515-239-1461 515-239-1891
KS Kenneth Hurst 913-296-3008 913-296-6946
KY Henry Mathis 502-564-3670 502-564-4839
Richard Sutherland
LA J. B. Esnard 504-379-1822 504-379-1351
ME Gerald Boucher 207-941-4536 504-287-6737
MD John Logan 410-545-8320 410-333-3139
MA Nabil Howrani 617-973-8832 617-973-7554
MI Mr. Kulkarni 517-322-1633 517-322-5664
MN Gary Peterson 612-582-1101 612-582-1110
MS Harry James 601-944-9342 601-944-9300
MO Ron Temme 314-751-3801 314-751-6555
MT William Fullerton 406-444-6280 406-444-6204
NE Bruce Thill 402-479-3930 402-479-4325
NH Mark Whitemore 603-271-2731 603-271-1649
Fred Prior
Byron Peck
NJ Jack Mansfield 609-530-3755 609-530-3689
NM Martin Gavurnik 505-827-5432 505-827-5345
NV Bill Crawford 702-687-5526 702-687-3102
NY Phillip Walton 518-457-4712 518-457-8080
NC Bill Moore 919-250-4088 919-250-4237
ND Steven Miller 701-328-2592 701-328-4545
OH Muhammad Riaz 614-466-2399 614-752-4824
OK Veldo Goins 405-521-2554 405-522-0134
OR Jerry Bellin 503-986-3372 503-986-3407
PA George DiCarlantonio 717-783-7456 717-783-8217
RI Jeff Dephillipo 401-277-2525 ext. 401-277-6038
4137
SC Randy Cannon 803-737-1420 803-737-1881
SD Kevin Goeden 605-773-3285 605-773-6608
Vernon Bump 605-773-3401
TN William Trolinger 615-350-4130 615-782-7960
TX George Odom 512-416-2557 512-416-2286
UT Ed Keane 801-965-4320 801-965-4796

23
VT Warren Tripp 802-828-2561 802-828-2792
WA Chuck Ruth 206-705-7209 206-705-6814
WI Stan Woods 608-266-8348 608-246-4669
WV Glen Sherman 304-558-3043 304-558-0253
WY Patrick Collins 307-777-4205 307-777-3994
VA1 Thomas Wong 703-934-0790 703-383-2470
VA2 James Tavenner 804-524-6138 804-524-6273
VA3 Vince Roney 757-925-2547 757-925-1526
VA4 Garry Lovins 540-669-9941 540-669-0826
VA5 Larry Hedgepeth 804-786-6369 804-786-2988

24
 APPENDIX C

TABLES

Table C-1. Advantages of Using Approach Slabs

State Smooth Reduced Control Uniform Lower Seismic Minimum None

Ride Impact Drainage Settlement Maint. Stability Deviation
Cost at Joints
AL X X
AZ X X
CA X
CT X
DE X
FL X
GA X
ID X X
IL X X
IN X X
IO X X X
KS X X X
KY X
LA X
ME X X X
MD X
MA X
MN X X
MS X
MO X X
MT X X
NE X X X X
NH X
NJ X X
NM X
NY X
ND X X
OH X
OK X
OR X X X X
SD X X X
TX X
VT X X
VA X X X
WA X X
WI X X X
WY X X X

25
 Table C-2. Disadvantages of Using Approach Slabs

State Higher Maint. Erosion Bending Problems Joints Rough Increased

Initial Stress w/Staged Surface Construction
Cost at Backwall Construction Time
CA X
DE X X X
GA X X
IL X
IN X
IO X X
KS X X
KY X X
LA X
ME X
MN X
MO X
MT X X X
NE X X
NJ X
ND X
OK X X
OR X X X
SD X X
VA X X
WA X X
WI X X
WY X

26
 Table C-3. Current Use of Approach Slabs (%)

State Interstate System Primary System Secondary System

AL 100 100 20
AZ 100 100 80
CT < 50 < 50 < 50
DE 90 65 20
FL 100 100 100
GA 100 100 100
ID “small” “small” “very small”
IL 100 100 90
IN 100 100 100
IA 100 75 10
KS 90 50 20
KY 35 35 35
LA 100 100 100
ME >50 >50 >50
MD <1 <2 0
MA 100 100 100
MN 90 69 8
MO 100 100 10
MS 100 100 85
MT <5 <5 <1
NE 100 100 100
NV 100 100 100
NH 95 30 7
NM 80 80 80
NY 100 100 100
ND 75 60 0
OH 100 95 75
OK 100 >90 0
OR 100 100 100
SC 100 100 30
SD 95 90 5
VT 100 100 100
VA 98 75 <4
WA 75 50 25
WI 100 100 25
WY 90 75 50

27
 Table C-4. Criteria for Use of Approach Slabs with Conventional Abutments

State Use on ADT, Pavement Settlement Road Embankment Engineer’s Not

All AADT, Type Expected Functional Height Option Used
Bridges DHV Classification
AL X X
AZ X
CA X X
CT X X
DE X X X X
FL X
GA X
ID X
IL X
IN X
IA X X X X
KS X X
KY X
MA X
MD X
ME X X X X
MN X
MS X
MO X
MT X X
NE X
NH X
NJ X X
NM X
NV X
NY X
ND X
OH X
OK X
OR X
SC X X
SD X
TX X
VT X
VA X X
WA X
WI X
WY X

28
 Table C-5. Criteria for Use of Approach Slabs with Integral Abutments

State Use on ADT, Pavement Settlement Road Embankment Engineer’s Not

All AADT, Type Expected Functional Height Option Used
Bridges DHV Classification
AL X
AZ X
CO X
CT X X
DE X
FL X
GA X
ID X
IL X
IN X
IA X X X X
KS X X X
KY X
MA X
MD X
ME X X X
MN X
MS X
MO X
MT X X
NE X
NH X
NJ X
NM X
NV X
NY X
ND X
OK X
OR X
SC X X
SD X
TX X
VT X
VA X
WA X
WI X
WY X

29
 Table C-6. Special Inclusion Circumstances

State Skew Expected Road Engineer’s Traffic Span Pavement Seismic All None
Settlement Class Option Volume Length Type Stability Bridges
AL X
AZ X
CT X
FL X
GA X
ID X X
IL X
IN X
IO X
KS X
KY X X X
MA X
ME X
MN X X
MS X
MO X
MT X X
NE X
NH X
NJ X
NY X
ND X
OH X
OK X
OR X
SC X
SD X
TX X
VT X X
VA X X X X
WA X
WI X
WY X

30
 Table C-7. Special Exclusion Circumstances

State No Excessive Engineer’s Traffic Existing Span Pvmt. Rocky Retro- None
Settle. Settle. Option Volume Embank. Length Type Terrain fit
Expected Expected
AL X
AZ X
CT X
DE X
FL X
GA X
ID X
IL X
IN X
IO X X
KS X
KY X
ME X
MA X
MS X
MT X
NE X
NV X
NH X
NJ X X
NY X
ND X
OH X
OK X
OR X
SC X X
SD X
TX X
VT X X
VA X
WA X
WI X
WY X

31
 Table C-8. Typical Approach Slab Dimensions

State Length, Thickness, Width Miscellaneous

m (ft) mm (in)
AL 6.1 (20) 230 (9) Pavement
AZ 4.6 (15)
CA 3.0-9.1 (10-30) 305 (12) Curb-Curb
DE 5.5-9.1 (18-30)
FL 6.1 (20) 305 (12) Curb-Curb
GA 6.1-9.1 (20-30) 254 (10) Curb-Curb
ID 6.1 (20) 305 (12) Length varies with skew angle
IL 9.1 (30) 380 (15) Curb-Curb
IN 6.2 (20.5) Length varies with skew angle
IO 6.1 (20) 254-305 (10-12) Pavement Length varies with skew angle
KS 4.0 (13) 254 (10) Curb-Curb
KY 7.6 (25) Curb-Curb
LA 12.2 (40) 405 (16) Curb-Curb Length varies with skew angle
ME 4.6 (15) 203 (8) Curb-Curb
MA 254 (10) Slab is sloped longitudinally
MN 6.1 (20) 305 (12) Pavement T-beams
MS 6.1 (20) Curb-Curb
MO 7.6 (25) 305 (12) Timber header at sleeper slab
NV 7.3 (24) 305 (12) Curb-Curb
NH 6.1 (20) 380 (15)
NJ 7.6 (25) 457 (18) Used with transition slab 9.1 m x 230-457 mm
(30 ft x 9-18 in)
NM 4.6 (15) Curb-Curb
NY 3.0-7.6 (10-25) 305 (12) Curb-Curb Sleeper slab, length varies with abutment type
ND 6.1 (20) 356 (14) Curb-Curb
OH 4.6-9.1 (15-30) 305-432 (12-17) Length varies with embankment and skew
angle
OK 9.1 (30) 330 (13) Curb-Curb
OR 6.1-9.1 (20-30) 305-356 (12-14) Curb-Curb Length varies with fill height and skew angle
SC 6.1 (20)
SD 6.1 (20) 230 (9)
TX 6.1 (20) 254 (10)
VT 6.1 (20)
VA 6.1-8.5 (20-28) 380 (15) Pavement Length varies with skew angle
WA 7.6 (25) 330 (13) Pavement Length varies with skew angle
WI 6.2 (20.5) 305 (12)
WY 7.6 (25) 330 (13) Curb-Curb Sleeper slab 1.7 m x 254 mm (5.5 ft x 10 in)

32
 Table C-9. Slab to Backwall Connection

State Conventional Bridges Integral Bridges Integral Abutments Not Used

Doweled or No Doweled or No
Tied Connection Tied Connection
AL X X
AZ X
CA X X
CT X
DE X X
FL X X
GA X
ID X X
IL X X
IN X X
IA X X
KS X X
KY X
LA X
ME X X
MD X
MA X X
MN X X
MO X
MS X X
MT X
NV X X
NH X
NJ X X
NM X
NY X
ND X X
OH X
OK X X
OR X X
SC X
SD X X
TX X X
VT X
VA X X
WA X X
WI X
WY X X

33
 Table C-10. Embankment Material Specifications

State Same/Different % Passing Miscellaneous

from Regular 75 µm (No. 200)
Embankment Sieve
AL Same A-1 to A-7
AZ Different
CA <4 Compacted pervious material
CT Different <5 Pervious material
DE Different Borrow type C
FL Same A-1,A-2-4 through A-2-7,A-4,A-5,A-6,A-7 (LL<50)
GA Same GA Class I, II or III
ID A yielding material
IL Different Porous, granular
IN Different <8
IO Different Granular; can use Geogrid
KS Can use granular, flowable or light weight
KY <10 Granular
LA Granular
ME Different <20 Granular borrow
MA Different <10 Gravel Borrow” type B, M1.03.0
MI Different* <7 *Only top 0.9 m (3 ft) are different (granular materials
Class II)
MN <10 Fairly clean granular
MS Different Sandy or loamy, non-plastic
MO Approved material
MT Different <4 Pervious
NE Granular
NV Different Granular
NH Same <12
NJ Different <8 Porous fill (Soil Aggregate I-9)
NM Same
NY <15 <30% Magnesium Sulfate loss
ND Different Graded mix of gravel and sand
OH Same Can use granular material
OK Different* *Granular just next to backwall
OR Different Better materials
SC Same
SD Varies* *Different for integral; same for conventional
TX Same
VT Same Granular
VA Same Porous backfill
WA Gravel borrow
WI Different <15 Granular
WY Different Fabric reinforced

34
 Table C-11. Lift Thickness and Percent Compaction Requirements

State Lift % Miscellaneous

Thickness, Compaction
mm (in)
AL 203 (8) 95
AZ 203 (8) 100
CA 203 (8) 95* * For top 0.76 m (2.5 ft)
CT 152 (6)* 100 *Compacted lift indicated
DE 203 (8) 95
FL 203 (8) 100
GA 100
ID 203 (8) 95
IL 203 (8) 95* *For top, remainder varies with embankment height
IN 203 (8) 95
IO 203 (8) None One roller pass per inch thickness
KS 203 (8) 90
KY 152 (6)* 95 *Compacted lift indicated; Moisture = +2% or -4% of
optimum
LA 305 (12) 95
ME 203 (8) At or near optimum moisture
MD 152 (6) 97* *For top 0.30 m (1 ft), remainder is 92%
MA 152 (6) 95
MI 230 (9) 95
MN 203 (8) 95
MS 203 (8)
MO 203 (8) 95
MT 152 (6) 95 At or near optimum moisture
NE 95
NV 95
NH 305 (12) 98
NJ 305 (12) 95
NY 152 (6)* 95 *Compacted lift indicated
ND 152 (6)
OH 152 (6)
OK 152 (6) 95
OR 203 (8) 95* *For top 0.91 m (3 ft), remainder is 90%
SC 203 (8) 95
SD 203-305 97 *0.20 m (8 in) for embankments, 0.30 m (12 in) for bridge
(8-12)* end backfill
TX 305 (12) None
VT 203 (8) 90
VA 203 (8) 95 + or –20% of optimum moisture
WA 102 (4)* 95 *Top 0.61 m (2 ft), remainder is 0.20 m (8 in)
WI 203 (8) 95* *Top 1.82 m (6 ft and within 60 m (200’), remainder is
90%
WY 305 (12) Use reinforced geotextile layers

35
 Table C-12. Drainage Provisions

State Plastic Weep Joint Granular Miscellaneous

Pipe holes Seal Fill
AL Open joint on bridge side of abutment
AZ Geocomposite
CA X Filter fabric; geocomposite
CT X* *or 152 mm (6 in) underdrain
DE X X
FL X Divert water from abutment
GA X* *or curb and gutter
ID X
IL X X 76 x 127 mm (3 x 5 in) curb; can use inlet box
IN X X
IO X X Subdrain at bottom of fill
KS X X Filter fabric and strip drain
KY X X
LA Wedge of drainable material
ME X French drains at abutment and wingwalls
MA Box culvert, curb, waterproofing
MI X X Underdrain at top of footing
MN X Curb and gutter, underdrain at top of footing
MS No special provisions
MO X* *or steel pipe; geotextile fabric
MT X Geocomposite
NE Drainage matting; rock riprap
NH X* X *102 mm (4 in) in diameter
NJ X* X X *or steel pipe
NM No special provisions
NY X Drainage board
ND X* *if soil heave is expected; trench at bottom of
backfill.
OH X X* *0.61 m (2 in) thick; underdrain
OK Underdrain at back of bridge seat
OR X End panels; catch basin
SC X Geotextile fabric and drains
SD X Drainage fabric and waterproofing
TX No special provisions
VT No special provisions
VA X X X
WA Catch basins and deck grading
WI X Underdrains if impervious soil
WY X Drainage and filtration geotextile

36
 Table C-13. Construction Issues

State Contractors Difficulties Obtaining Recycled or Manufactured

Closely Specified Degree of Materials Ever Used for
Monitored? Compaction at Abutments? Backfilling Abutments?
AL X X
AZ X
CA X
CT X X X
DE X
FL X
GA X X
ID X
IN X
IA X
KS X X
KY X X X
LA X X X
MA X
MD
ME X X
MI X X
MS X
MO X
MT X
NE X
NH X X
NJ X X
NM X
NY X
OH X
OK X
OR X X X
SC X X
SD X X X
TX X X
VT X
VA X X X
WA X X
WI X
WY X X

37
Table C-14. Do You Typically Build Approach Embankments Before or After Abutment Construction?

State Before After

AL X
AZ X
CA X
CT X
DE X
FL X
GA X X
ID X
IN X
IA X
IL X
KS X
KY X
LA X
MA X
MD X
ME X
MI X X
MS X X
MO X
MT X X
ND X
NE X X
NH X
NJ X
NM X
NY X X
OH X
OK X
OR X
SC X
SD X
TX X
VT X
VA X X
WA X X
WI X
WY X

38
Table C-15. Is Approach Slab Settlement a Significant Problem?

State Yes No Moderate

AZ X
CA X
CT X
DE X
FL X
GA X
ID X
IN X
IA X
IL X
KS X
KY X
LA X
MA X
MD X
ME X
MI X
MN X
MS X
MO X
MT X
ND X
NE X
NH X
NJ X
NM X
NY X
OH X
OK X
OR X
SC X
SD X
TX X
VT X
VA X
WA X
WI X
WY X

39